How do you resubmit a rejected manuscript?

There are a wide variety of reasons why a manuscript may be rejected; I think that an author should ensure that they understand why their manuscript has been rejected based on the feedback that has been provided. Rejection if taken professionally and in good faith can inform the enhancement strategy. And as another contributor as mentioned, the manuscript can be resubmit to another publisher.

I agree with these comments. Read and respond positively to the suggestions made by the referee and the editors. Too many resubmissions do not address the criticisms. Remember that the article will probably go back to the original reviewers.

Rejection is indeed a stepping stone to success in journal manuscript submissions. Employing AI tools is a substantial strategy for enhancing and refining a rejected manuscript, aligning it more closely with the expectations of journals. AI can meticulously analyze your work, offer essential suggestions for improvement, and assist in comprehensive reformatting. This holistic revision process, powered by AI, significantly bolsters the possibility of your manuscript’s acceptance upon resubmission to a journal. This technological intervention not only elevates the overall quality of your manuscript but also ensures its adherence to the stringent standards upheld by reputable journals, thereby enhancing the probability of its future acceptance.

Feedback is always difficult to digest and resubmission can be an uphill task due to the IKEA effect. A first step is to read the feedback with a fresh approach , after you have overcome your dejection feelings. The second step is to decide if you want to resubmit the manuscript, even though you may or may not agree with the feedback due to your own tunnel vision. The third step is to make points on the feedback in terms of which places in the manuscript need revision, if you have decided to resubmit . Treat your manuscript like a short story with pointers that connect with each other like a story writing guide. Then find exact points in the guide where you can make changes in line with the feedback.

Whether convinced or not by a rejection, You need to read the letter from the Editor and reviewers carefully, tackle all major and minor points mentioned, prepare an improved manuscript, and resubmit again. Sometimes a manuscript can get accepted even to a higher-impact journal after the rejection.

I always take rejection as an opportunity to learn. Sometimes, I submit my manuscripts to a higher impact factor journal just to receive criticism from quality reviewers. The next step would be to (point by point) revise the manuscript based on the comments from reviewers to improve the manuscript. The third strategy is to look for a more suitable journal to submit the manuscript. Resubmission to the same journal (from where it was rejected before), must only be followed in case the editor encouraged the author to do so. Otherwise, submitting to another journal would be a better approach as minor objections don't usually lead to rejections. They lead to revisions and resubmission guidelines. Some established authors may still resubmit.

No matter how experienced a researcher you are, rejection is very hard. I always feel a bit upset, but important not to take it personally. Leave it a few days and then really study the feedback. Often there are some really good points that will improve your article. Assuming that you are re-submitting to the same journal, make sure that you systematically address all the points and start preparing a letter that clearly explains what you have done to address the feedback. That letter really helps the reviewer. Proof read really carefully and submit. Good luck.

In my humble opinion, start revising the manuscript and prepare for an improved version even before getting the feedback. Planning ahead is essential so that you can add to the manuscript and improve it as well as answer some of the reviewers' questions as soon as you receive the reviewers' comments. Add all controls and supplementary data you have. and don't forget to proofread it for minor edits.

Journals are one of many ways to contribute to overall knowledge sharing, and they come in many shapes and sizes. The most impressive scholars (and public intellectuals) I know have multiple irons in the fire. If you feel strongly about your argument, look at ways to stretch and shrink it! Can you collaborate? Can you find someone who will disagree with you and hash it out?

In my experience, it is important to consider interdisciplinary collaborations. Moreover, using Bioarxiv and online preprints to get feedback from people working in the same field would be really helpful. Be always open for discussions, improvements, collaborations, and for people disagreeing with your work or even having completely opposite opinions. Learn how to respond to them and improve your research to convince them of your data and results.

It's tiresome. But I try to unlearn the content after reading the (or while reading) the feedback. Personally let the busy brain open for the feedback. Breaking the shell of the big-headed researcher.

I think this is all very informative. It is a similar process for submitting program proposals for conferences. Being open to feedback and critiques on your content, formatting, etc is very important. It allows you to continue to grow and learn what areas you may need more help developing in. I especially agree though with evaluating if what you want to discuss in your paper or proposal needs to match the destination of the where it will be shared.Relevance is as important as the content within.